Federal Judges Block Alabama’s Redistricting Plan Citing Racial Discrimination

Federal judges have blocked Alabama’s plan to implement a new congressional map in the upcoming midterm elections. The panel ruled that the Republican-backed map discriminated based on race by including only one Black-majority district. Instead, the judges mandated the use of a court-ordered map featuring two districts where Black residents form a majority or nearly so.

The court decision is a significant setback for Republicans, who aimed to reclaim a seat held by Democratic U.S. Rep. Shomari Figures. Republicans may still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rep. Figures expressed satisfaction with the ruling but anticipates further legal battles.

The judges stated, “Ultimately, we cannot see our way clear to requiring Alabamians to cast their votes in the 2026 elections under a districting plan tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.”

This move by the judiciary is part of the ongoing legal case tied to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Black-majority district in Louisiana. That decision weakened the Voting Rights Act, sparking redistricting efforts across several Southern states.

The panel noted evidence of intentional racial discrimination in Alabama’s districting plan. They reviewed attempts to implement a 2023 map and opted instead to proceed with previously court-approved districts for any special congressional primaries.

Deuel Ross from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund praised the ruling for protecting voters’ constitutional rights in predominantly Black areas. He affirmed that the upcoming elections would now take place under fairer conditions. Louisiana and other states like South Carolina and Tennessee are also navigating similar electoral adjustments following the Supreme Court’s decision, impacting primary scheduling and potentially altering party representation in Congress.

Efforts spurred by former President Donald Trump to redefine voting districts have emerged prominently in several Republican-led states, leading to legal challenges and various outcomes at both state and federal levels.